The question is flawed to begin with. For most particles, mass and energy are one and the same and can be exchanged for each other. This is not the case with photons, however. The photons energy is determined only by it's wavelength as explained by the expression E=hc/λ.

I withdraw my comment on calling you a retard, it's just my get big instincts, sorry bro, I just realized who you are and you are one of the better posters, anyway yes you are right I am not qualified to talk about theories, but the concept of a beginning can be discussed by anyone and anyone will agree that it's a concept that cannot be explained, hence it's irrational, that is all my argument, I am not arguing that intelligent design is correct, although I believe in it, but all I am saying is both concepts cannot be explained rationally

Well I think you put your ideas in wrong words then. Science and religion are different realms and therefore they may coexist - so even if we know one day theory of everything and explain every part of the physical world including big bang, origin of time and so on one could still say that this is all creation of a god. That's quite obvious observation.

Why can't we all admit that we really don't fucking know anything about everything. The battle between science and religion is fucking stupid. The human brain will never fully comprehend the truth behind everything. We will find out when we are dead, which is probably an eternal, dark, peaceful sleep. Just like it was before we were born.

The question is flawed to begin with. For most particles, mass and energy are one and the same and can be exchanged for each other. This is not the case with photons, however. The photons energy is determined only by it's wavelength as explained by the expression E=hc/λ.

the question isnt flawed. if energy has mass, the photons (energy) have mass.

if energy only possesses mass when in aggregate with another substance, then energy itself never possesses mass. energy can only be encompassed by mass, never made up of it.

but i think the case is that energy, being extended, takes up space, in of that there is actually something there in that space and not just a concept of a thing, there is some observable entity in that space, and that entity is made of something. thus, energy, being made of something extended, being extended itself, does possess "Mass" in the purest sense (AKA total amount of material that makes an object) because it is made up of some quantity of something. even photons are made of something, and thus have "mass" in this sense.. = they have an amount of substance which makes them up.

i probably should have brought this up the very first time we ever touched on this issue. well, now that i think about it i was actually trying to play a game of "got ya!" by making this assertion. but i guess i needed to fill in the gaps of my assertion with more information as to lead you down the path i was on.

Why can't we all admit that we really don't fucking know anything about everything. The battle between science and religion is fucking stupid. The human brain will never fully comprehend the truth behind everything. We will find out when we are dead, which is probably an eternal, dark, peaceful sleep. Just like it was before we were born.

thats exactly what ive been arguing this entire time my friend.

the problem is these guys wont accept that knowledge is impossible on this issue. they think science can know what ultimately causes things to happen.

the question isnt flawed. if energy has mass, the photons (energy) have mass.

if energy only possesses mass when in aggregate with another substance, then energy itself never possesses mass. energy can only be encompassed by mass, never made up of it.

but i think the case is that energy, being extended, takes up space, in of that there is actually something there in that space and not just a concept of a thing, there is some observable entity in that space, and that entity is made of something. thus, energy, being made of something extended, being extended itself, does possess "Mass" in the purest sense (AKA total amount of material that makes an object) because it is made up of some quantity of something. even photons are made of something, and thus have "mass" in this sense.. = they have an amount of substance which makes them up.

i probably should have brought this up the very first time we ever touched on this issue. well, now that i think about it i was actually trying to play a game of "got ya!" by making this assertion. but i guess i needed to fill in the gaps of my assertion with more information as to lead you down the path i was on.

What is the point of even having this discussion when all you do is make up your own versions of reality? When I(and modern science) clearly point out that photons have no mass in ANY sense of the word, all you do is try to reinvent the word mass so you can delude yourself and win the argument inside your own head. You can't even grasp the concept that energy and mass are one and the same with the exception of photons. Do you even have the slightest clue about physics? I bet you don't even know from the top of your head what a newton(N) is. Yet here you are making shit up about photons.

It's obvious as can be by now that there's nothing in the known universe that could make you admit that you were wrong. I'm done with this particular discussion.

Haven't followed all of the thread, but I don't want to know the "innards" of the universe, just live. It's a waste of time for us in our vessel'd state.Taking some form of drugs may deepen our empathic understanding of the mere nature of things...

What is the point of even having this discussion when all you do is make up your own versions of reality? When I(and modern science) clearly point out that photons have no mass in ANY sense of the word, all you do is try to reinvent the word mass so you can delude yourself and win the argument inside your own head. You can't even grasp the concept that energy and mass are one and the same with the exception of photons. Do you even have the slightest clue about physics? I bet you don't even know from the top of your head what a newton(N) is. Yet here you are making shit up about photons.

It's obvious as can be by now that there's nothing in the known universe that could make you admit that you were wrong. I'm done with this particular discussion.

you really worship scientific labels dont you

"photon"

energy IS photons.

a hersheys bar IS chocolate.

(same idea)

think on your own. "zero rest mass" for a particle that doesnt rest ? LMAO and how is that determined ? how can one test that hypothesis ?

I'm personally optimistic that science will eventually have a lot to say about our origins but that doesn't mean I think it definitely will. To claim to know where science ends is a mistake.

Nah dude, we know absolutely that we can never know anything about the origins of life, nothing, ever, never, in no conceivable way could we ever, because we already have the answer, god did it. God can't be known but we know he can't be known, i'm unsure of how we know the unknown and claim with such certainty to know, makes sense right?

I never said "God" did anything. I make no assertions but that assertions can not be made.

it reminds me of a saying: "We dont know what we dont know."

think about that saying in relation to the idea of possessing understanding of ultimate causality.

what fact could ever convince you that it was the last fact you needed to know?

what possible answer could someone give you that would not leave you with some question about how things happen ?

i find it troublesome that you arent grasping this truth... that the truth itself is hidden from our view.. we cant see it, no matter what science we use.. questions will always remain

ok prove logically that we can make no assertions, thats my whole beef with your argument, it is impossible to say we cannot make any assertions by the nature of the thing you are talking about. The best we can say is that we don't know right now but may or may not, we can make no definitive statements. You also keep harping on this but then make the absolute unsupported statement that no assertions can ever be made, how do you know? what piece of divine knowledge do you think you possess that all the great minds in the world cannot? Why do you insist we can never know, it's fucking wrong silly and based on nothing but conjecture. I fine with pantheism, I am one but it still doesn't suggest we will never know, perhaps we evolve into gods and then discover all the truths of the universe, why is that implausible? all i need is one scenario that disproves we can never make any assertions to destroy your position, it's called logic, it's how you arrive at truth you seem to have thrown inquire out the window for certainty that simply does not exist at the moment.

the only knowledge im claiming to have is that the universe is by nature incomprehensible. either an uncaused creator, or an uncaused physical world... either a world where God just happens, or a world where stuff just happens.. no matter what, things are NOT explainable, they just ARE.

BTW, what about your view on the universe makes you identity with pantheism? I have seen absolutely nothing from any of your thoughts to indicate you think there is any divine semblance to the world. Pantheism at its weakest at the least asserts a divine nature to the universe in some sort or another. Pantheism at its strongest, the one I am fond of, resembles something like "mother nature", that the universe itself is a thinking, creating being; not separate from but comprised of the entirety of existence.